Rain, Irrigation and Declines in GMD 4

One would hope that irrigation, precipitation and groundwater level changes are all relational - the more it rains, the less we irrigate and the slower the water level decline goes.  The following are data for the 10 Counties in NW Kansas for the years 2000 through 2012.  

Col 1 = Year; Col 2 = Annual average precip (10 stations); Col 3 = Reported water use (GMD 4 total, all uses except domestic); Col 4 = Acres reported irrigated; Col 5 = Inches of water reported applied per reported acre irrigated; and Col 6 = January 1 (following year) water level change.  Unfortunately, 2012 data for water use and acres irrigated are not yet available.

The water level change data come from 275 observation wells across the entire GMD area that are measured each January. 

Year  Precip     Wtr Use      Ac Irr      In/Ac      WL Chg 2000   16.72      497,737      386,055        1.29      -1.16 2001   19.79      424,223      380,152        1.12      -0.41 2002   11.30      527,661      386,350        1.37      -1.51 2003   14.06      484,311      386,979        1.25      -1.14 2004   20.13      479,461      385,161        1.24      -0.6 2005   21.15      397,666      381,202        1.04      -0.57 2006   19.37      435,017      379,479        1.15      -0.29 2007   17.07      417,848      377,010        1.11      -0.89 2008   21.65      406,801      377,691        1.08      -0.42 2009   25.59      301,350      376,254        0.80        0.1 2010   17.45      368,030      376,969        0.98      -0.5 2011   22.48      435,900      380,667        1.15      -0.59 2012   11.76      -1.39
I see a pretty strong correlation (inverse) between rainfall and annual declines - Col 2 and Col 6.  When the rainfall increases, the water level decline rate decreases.  Just eyeballing the numbers, it appears to me that with average annual rainfall (18.35 inches) we'd expect about a .6 foot decline.  With 23-24 inches of rainfall, a .25 foot decline, and with 12-15 inches somewhere around a 1.5 foot decline. I see a little less correlation between the reported water use and the water level change, but there is still some relationship.  It is quite true in the extremes, anyway - the wettest year (2009) saw the least water used and the smallest water level change while the driest year (2002) saw the greatest water use and the largest water level change. Most can probably see the inherent sense of all this, but may wonder why there is not a perfect relationship between rainfall, pumpage and declines.  Well there are a number of reasons why we'll never see such an absolute relationship:
1)  The rainfall data provided is annual precipitation.  Six months out of the year the rainfall is far less relevant to crops and irrigation.  There is probably a more relevant relationship between in-season rainfall and what we're trying to show, but this is hard to flesh out when our region gets just 60-65% of its total rainfall in season. 2)  The rainfall data is highly variable - meaning that while the entire NW Kansas average may have been 20 inches, we easily could have had irrigation areas that only got 14 while other areas got 23.    3)  The quality of rainfall is never known in the data.  You might get 20 inches of annual rain, but if it came in 5 hard rains of 4 inches each over a three hour period, most of it ran off and did not contribute to soil moisture conditions that would allow for reduced irrigation. 4)  Any water level change is a function of natural recharge and pumping withdrawals. While more rain generally means increased recharge (and reduced pumpage) it is not an exact relationship (see reason 3) above). 5)  Cropping is in constant flux and different crops affect withdrawals differently - both the timing and quantity. 6)  A late freeze in the Spring, hail, excessive insect or weed pressures all affect an irrigated crop and the amount of water applied.  It may rain 15 inches, but if a late Spring freeze takes out your corn crop, irrigation is greatly reduced that year. Anyway, I think you get the picture.  But I have to say, all-in-all, there is a pretty good relationship in GMD 4 between rainfall, irrigation use and groundwater declines.  Now, if it'd only rain - at the right time, in the right amount and with the perfect intensity...

Trouble for the Taj - Water Woes to Blame

Taj Mahal, Agra, India

I added an entry in my "movies including wells" listing a while back on a Smithsonian Channel documentary on the famed Taj Mahal, in Agra, India.  It's well-related factoid is that basically the entire foundation of the tomb-part of the structure was built on a grid of groundwater wells dug and filled with material for adequate support.

There is now much angst within India over the structural problems of the iconic Taj Mahal since the adjacent Yamuna River is far over-used, polluted, and drying up along with local groundwater levels dropping far too quickly - reported at 5 feet per year in the immediate vicinity.  It is the dropping groundwater levels that are drying out the 358+-year old mahogany piles used inside the lattice of wells to support the structure.  In the drying out process these posts become brittle and start to disintegrate.  Recent reports claim cracks have appeared in the tomb over the past year and that the 4 minarets are showing signs of excessive tilting - a structural collapse looming, according to some, in as few as 5 years.  A group has been set up to deal with the preservation, but claim a lack of funding is why nothing has been done since 2003.

They must have known something was afoot all along, because according to the Smithsonian Channel, one of the foundation wells was left open purposely for an observation well.  A 350-some year old record of on-site water levels should be a pretty good data set I'd think.  Groundwater declines always seem to be a problem - first it's land subsidence, drying up of wells and water supplies, loss of wetlands, river baseflows and deep rooted flora.  Now it's dessication of monument foundations. 

Here's hoping the government can solve this problem.  The Taj Majal is indeed in the top 3 list of the most architecturally beautiful buildings in the world - ever. 

A California Water Dialog

I recently ran across a website promoting better groundwater management for a discreet, isolated, inter-mountain valley aquifer in California - the Borrego Valley in Northeastern San Diego County.  http://www.borregowaterunderground.org/.  The website owners are using this site as a call to arms to force the groundwater regulating entity therein - the Borrego Water District - to implement a groundwater plan they alledgedly drafted in 2002 but have never implemented.  This site claims the groundwater levels have been falling at over 2 feet per year for the past 20 years, and this rate is increasing of late.  Prediction is, based on projected extraction rates, another 30 years before the aquifer reaches a critical point.  Other facts are:  a population of 3,000; a 70 sqaure mile area; and withdrawing 24,000 AF per year.  Sounds pretty serious - at least it did to me upon my first read.

The state's information on the valley is a bit different, but a lot more complete.  They report an area of 240 square miles; annual average net use of 15,160 AF; average annual recharge of 8,300 AF; maximum saturated thickness of 4,500 feet in 3 stacked aquifers, but thinning a bit toward the valley flanks; specific yields ranging from 2% in the deepest formation to 25% in the shallowest; pre-development storage of 5,500,000 AF; total net depletion of groundwater (pre-development to 1980) of 330,000 AF - resulting in 1980 storage of 5,170,000 AF.

Amazing how the scope of the problem changes when the rest of the picture is provided.  In fact it was the lack of saturated thickness, recharge and aquifer storage information that got the better of me and caused me to find this out.  There had to be more to this story.  I had started reading the webpage in context of my local groundwater experience and was struck by the reported decline rates.  These are worse than ours, which are locally considered too high.  It wasn't until the scope of the overdraft in terms of the aquifer's storage volumes was discovered that this picture changed.  While any decline is a problem of some degree and should be addressed (with accurate information if possible), and I applaud these folks for pointing out the situation, I have to also believe there are likely bigger problems to get after than this one, at this time - even in Borrego Springs, CA.

All The Trends Are Right, But...

I've just updated a suite of data sets I have been keeping for about 30 years on GMD things - like water appropriated, decline rates, new water rights filed, etc.  While most of the trends are just the way we'd like to see them, the bottom line is that they are not steep enough to make a lot of difference.  I guess the good news is the problems are not getting any worse.  For all these charts, keep in mind that the district was formed in 1976, hired staff in early 1977 and got it's initial management program approved in 1978.

New Water Rights Filed:  This graph shows how quickly we got the excessive trend of new water rights under control.  What you don't see on this graph is that since about 1990 most of the new water rights were very small appropriations compared to before that time, so while we may have approved 4 new rights in 2009 for instance, the total quantity of new appropriations (water) those rights represent is quite small - especially when compared to 4 water rights that were approved in say, 1980.  You also don't see how many water rights are being removed from the system. There is a net reduction in appropriated water rights regardless of the new rights coming on line of late as we'll see below.

Appropriated vs. Pumped Acrefeet:  The fact that appropriated acrefeet are trending downward is good but it is not a steep trend.  Appropriated acrefeet are lost by certifications, abandoned/forfeited water rights or voluntary reductions/closures.  The annually pumped water is highly climate dependent and does bounce around a bit, but the longer term trend is positive (lowering) as well.

Irrigated Acres, Inseason Rainfall, Pumped Acrefeet:  Again, we see the in season rainfall trend line (blue) essentially level while the pumped water trend line (green) trending slightly downward.  This graph also shows the high correlation between in season rainfall and water pumped.  Unfortunately, the cumulative decline line (bottom line) is not reflecting all of the positive trends, albeit slow ones, which we had hoped it would.  It seems to be stuck on its inexorable downward trend.

Several things could be at work here.  Maybe all the trends are in fact short term trends and/or are not really real enough (significant enough) to affect the bottom line.  Maybe there is a lag time and we'll start seeing the positive effects of all these good trends in the near future.  Maybe the aquifer parameters are changing with depth more significantly than the reduced water use is slowing the decline rate.  It is also possible our observation well measurements aren't what they should be - I've covered that  in an earlier post.  And finally, maybe the reductions of pumping have been solely the result of water use efficiency improvements, and the consumptive water use (which is the only cause of changes in aquifer storage) has actually not changed at all.  And just maybe it's all of these things happening simultaneously.  One thing is clear - the decline problem is far more complex than most realize, and really understanding it starts with being able to measure it way better than we can now.

IRS Groundwater Depletion Allowance

Back in the 1960's a savvy Texas irrigator sued the IRS in order to claim a depletion allowance on his federal taxes for groundwater declines under his property.  He eventually won his suit and the IRS revised Section 611 of the Internal Revenue Code - dealing specifically with the Southern High Plains area of the Ogallala Aquifer (Texas and New Mexico) where natural recharge is scant at best.  This was Revised Ruling 65-296.

In 1973 three Kansas irrigators began claiming the same allowance, and ended up suing the IRS in 1978 after having been denied the claims.  They eventually won also, and the IRS revised the ruling again (82-214) for the rest of the Ogallala.

Basically to claim the deduction, you must show the IRS you own or have an economic interest in the land, the water table is declining due to its use, that recharge is negligbile or non-existent and that you have a cost in water that is devaluing as the groundwater depletes.  Practically, you need credible water level information for each year once you establish your cost in water for the land. 

I often wonder if the rulings have had any impact on groundwater use or conservation in the Ogallala.  The attorneys that litigated the Kansas case reported in 1980 that it could mean as much as $1 billion less tax burden to irrigators in Kansas alone - over the life of the aquifer.  Personally I don't think it is used all that much in NW Kansas - where the cost in water has always been harder to establish, and the declines less significant.  But where this is not true, I can see tax benefits to depleting the groundwater on schedule.

This'd be a good investigative report for some aspiring hydro-journalist some day.  I wonder how easy it would be to get a freedom of information request approved by the IRS for all such claimants by state?  Could be a very interesting study.

Here We Go With the Generalizations - Again...

I wish folks could make it more clear in their writings on the Ogallala Aquifer of specifically where they are referring to.  Take the recent (March 15, 2011) article on the Ogallala - "The Next Oil", by Johnathan R. Grammer.  He spends a good deal of effort describing the entire Ogallala (all 8 states worth), and makes a few statements about the Ogallala in the Panhandle of Texas that easily could be true of anywhere in the aquifer.  Then he starts off a new paragraph that seems to be describing the entire Ogallala again:  

"..the Ogallala does not recharge. Simply stated, while most aquifers enjoy the benefit of "recharge zones" ... the same replenishment due the Ogallala is denied it either by evaporation or is diverted by the underground and surface geology. What results is a finite water supply much like an oil and gas reservoir. Once it is depleted, it is gone forever." 

What?  While he likely may be discussing smaller, isolated areas of the Ogallala in the Texas Panhandle, this certainly can't be true for the entire Ogallala.  But he says it is.  I happen to believe the Ogallala does recharge in Kansas - albeit a tad bit on the conservative side - but that water got there somehow.

" As a result [of no recharge], the Ogallala Aquifer has been depleted by crop irrigation and domestic use at a rate equaling 1.5 feet a year in some parts. Scientists have speculated, though, such a possibility represents a worst-case scenario, that the aquifer itself may be dry beyond utility within 25 years. Others have speculated that its supply will last for at least another 100 years."

Again, no inkling of where he is speaking, but his words say this is true of the entire Ogallala Aquifer.  Our portion of the aquifer in Graham County, KS is as full or fuller than it was in 1977.  There are even larger areas of our groundwater management district that have a solid 250 year life time projected.  In Nebraska there are large areas of the Ogallala that still have 1200 feet of water and are not declining.  This statement cannot apply to the entire aquifer.

While the Ogallala Aquifer does have its "OMG" overdrafted areas, and there are eye-opening overdrafts in many other areas of the aquifer in virtually every state, you simply cannot describe the entire aquifer in such sweeping terms.  And the range of conditions that exist make average values just about as useless as well.  Our average Ogallala decline rate in GMD 4 is .5 feet per year, but we range from almost 2 feet/yr to areas that are not declining at all. 

And the consequence of this is?  I was on #agchat tonight (topic was "water") and the following conversation came up regarding the declining Ogallala:

She:  "A friend & cotton farmer on the TX High Plains had CNN out on his place today."

He:  "Do you know what the CNN story is concerning? Thanks!"

She:  "yes, its on the Ogallala aquifer. what's happening with that water table, what farmers are doing."

The press has been focused of late on Happy, TX, a place smack dab in the middle of the most serious decline area of the Southern High Plains Aquifer in Texas.  See here;  and here; and here.  No doubt the CNN crew was also interested in this region.  These articles all read like the entire Ogallala does not recharge at all; and is dropping so fast there may be only 10 years of pumping left.  Doesn't it sound like this is what the agchatter took away from her sources?

The USGS Says:  "The areas of significant water-level declines are not common to the entire region. In fact, the area of the greatest water-level declines (25 feet to more than 150 feet) is focused in...15 percent of the entire High Plains aquifer area."  (USGS Circular 1243, 2004)

Total water in storage in 2005 was about 2,925 million acre-feet, which was a decline of about 253 million acre-feet (or 9 percent) since predevelopment. (USGS Fact Sheet 2007-3029 by V.L. Mcguire)

While the Happy, Texas area has obviously taken a considerable amount of water from the aquifer in their specific area, a 9% depletion since pre-development (1950 in most cases) does not sound like the end of the world for most of the remaining aquifer area to me.  Indicative of a serious problem - Yes, but immediate disaster - No.  Future articles written I hope are situated and qualified better.  These writers all need to be aware that many non-Texas folks are reading this material too, and need more accurate and less sensational material.

GMD 4 Rain - Pumping - Water Table Relationship

I continue to be struck by the simplicity of the water use patterns inside our groundwater management district.  The graph included (click on it to enlarge) shows 3 graphed data sets from roughly 1980 through 2002 - average in-season rainfall; reported groundwater pumped; and water level change.  (We used only the data from the late 1980s forward for reported water use - when our reporting process was enhanced significantly.)

When the rains come, the pumpage drops and the water table change is mitigated.  And of course, the opposite is true as well.  A really good example of inversely related data sets.  Now, if we could only get it to rain more...

One of these days I'm going to update this graph because it's so instructional.  You should note also the three trend lines included on the graph.  While the in-season rainfall and the water level change trend lines are relatively flat, the reported pumped water trend line is decidedly downsloping. 

Why, you ask, should the water level change line NOT be upward sloping if less water is getting pumped?  It's because consumptive use drives the water level changes.  While pumped water is actually declining due largely to irrigation efficiency improvements, the consumptive use of the reduced water pumped has held more or less steady.  To affect the water level change trend line, we need to reduce consumptive water use - or, make it rain more.

Reduce...Reduce...Reduce!

I can't tell you how many times I've heard it said, or seen it in writing:  "That area should quit overpumping the groundwater" or something very similar. I'm sure you've heard it too.  Well, any area that has aquifer declines large enough to be that obvious is well beyond sustainable yield.  That's because the well development generally took place decades ago - before groundwater modeling that could predict these impacts became widely used.  In reality the true impacts of well development and groundwater pumping is initially masked and not at all obvious.  Due to the groundwater lag effect, it can take decades before the development starts to affect stream baseflows, which is one way the declines become noticed as serious.  I'd hazzard a guess that in most groundwater overdevelopment cases that are considered serious enough to address, it'd take a minimum of 40% less pumping to even make a dent - and remember, that's once the declines are discovered, quantified, and the permitting of new wells gets properly addressed - if it ever does.

If this is the case, you can see how difficult such a decision would be to any such area. If you can imagine the impact a 40, 50 or 60% reduction in water use within your City or County might have, then maybe you can be a bit more compassionate.  And if you can't imagine such an impact, then you have no business partaking in the discussions.  I can promise you, if it was that easy to do it'd have already been done.  It simply doesn't help to stand out there offering disparaging comments and acting judgmental and disappointed.

We're working on it.  I'd appreciate some honest, well intentioned help, or your quiet understanding.  My phone number is 785-462-3915.  Talk to me!

Beware of Groundwater Depletion Predictions

Topic: Pet peeve (if not number 1, pretty high up there) - Predictions of when we'll run out of groundwater.

Let's start in my own back yard - the Kansas High Plains - Ogallala country. The following was printed on February 4, 1979 in one of the state's leading newspapers:

State water experts predict that irrigation will be nothing but a memory in many large areas of west central Kansas in eight to 10 years. They give northwest Kansas about 15 years..

Well, northwest Kansas is my area, and I'm glad to report that irrigation is still here. And most of it is still in west central Kansas, too.  In other words, the 1979 predictions were not at all accurate.  The question is why?   The short answer is that most predictions take an average trend - like annual decline rate - and project it forward.  In 1979 the average decline rate in western Kansas was approaching 2 feet per year.  With only 40 to 80 feet of saturated thickness remaining in west central and northwest Kansas respectively, and irrigation needing about 30 feet of water to continue, the math at that time seemed close to correct.

But, in real situations, the declines reduce well yields, which in turn reduce water diversions, which in turn reduce the decline rates.  The assumption of a straight-line trend is faulty.  Click on the water level chart above to enlarge it.  This chart involves 50 obsevation wells in one County in NW Kansas - Sheridan.  Graphed are the 4 wells of these 50 which show:  the most saturated thickness in 1965; the least saturated thickness in 1965; the most decline - 1965-2008; and the least decline - 1965-2008.  The heavy black plotting is the average saturated thickness of all 50 wells in each year.

Several things are obvious. First, where there was good water in 1965, the wells were pumped hard and declines resulted. Where there was not good water, there was limited use and a relatively stable saturated thickness. Second, the average decline rate is slowing and in fact all the graph lines are converging toward that average.  Again, the straight line trend assumption if used in this case in 1975 would have been very wrong.

And furthermore, this is just one section of our district. Looking at the same chart for the 19 observation wells in western Grahan County (the next county east of Sheridan) the decline problem is a non-issue.

Water table declines will always be problematic, but they will rarely be as bad as the press and headline grabbers want them to appear.  So, ask the right questions and get the good data before assuming the end of the groundwater world as we know it today.  Groundwater is very temporal and site specific, so generalizations do no one any good.

So, You Want A New Water Right..

New water rights are pretty hard to get in GMD 4, but not impossible.  It largely depends on where you are wanting one.  New water rights are generally allowed if the long-term safe yield of an area has not yet been exceeded.  We consider that recharge value to be 1/2 inch, and the area of concern to be a 2-mile radius circle (8,042 acres) surrounding the proposed well location.  The half inch recharge over 8,042 acres translates into 335 acre feet of water allowable.

So, if there is less than 335 acre feet of appropriated water rights in the 8,042 acre area surrounding your proposed well location, it can be appropriated to you (up to the 335 acre feet limit) - provided, you're not in one of the permanently closed areas, or, an intensives groundwater use control area. The GMD regulations also do not apply to domestic wells, term and temporary permits or non-Ogallala wells.  

If you're lucky enough to be in a very lightly developed area and water is available for appropriation, you must also meet a variable well spacing requirement a minimum of 1400 feet for appropriations less than 175 acre feet, or 2,000 feet for larger appropriations.  As you may suspect, there are not many areas in the district where these conditions can be met, and in those areas where they can be, there's not a bounty of groundwater to be had, or the land is not generally suited for irrigation.

Most don't realize how restrictive this new-development regulation is, but with a typical quarter section pivot system needing about 200 acrefeet of water per year, it approaches the severity of 2-mile well spacing from any other high capacity well.

These regulations have been in effect since the mid-1980s, so not much new water has been appropriated since then. In reality, we have experienced a net reduction in total water appropriated since then - but not by hugely significant numbers.  And with the current water use reduction programs on-going, we'll be reducing our withdrawals even more over the next 3 years.  Again, we're not halving our water use, but it's clearly peaked and is headed the other way now.

It pains me to read the headlines that the rate of groundwater mining is increasing worldwide, and while it may be doing so on a global scale, I'm happy to report that this is NOT the case in our part of the world.

An Ogallala Groundwater Concept Rarely Discussed

Much has been and is being written about the Ogallala Aquifer and its groundwater situation.  Most articles do several things that I always want to question.  First, they tend to discuss a specific part of the Ogallala, but attach a headline that applies to the entire aquifer.

Take for example a recent Twitter post:  "Decline of the Ogallala Aquifer - a classic common pool resource problem."  When you follow the link and read the article, it's solely about the High Plains Texas portion of the aquifer, and moreover, the situtation (problem) is attributed almost exclusively to that states' groundwater management scheme - the Rule of Capture.  Yet, anyone skimming headlines only will come away thinking the entire Ogallala is a classic common pool resource problem - even though there are 8 different management approaches to the entire aquifer and only Texas uses the Rule of Capture.  I have probably 4 times over the past 6 months left comments to this effect on blogs and replied to twitter posts.  This will be a hard practice to correct, I'm afraid.

Secondly, a lot of the articles couch the problem of declines in a constant time frame - and predict a future-certain "plane crash".  For example, they say something to the effect that the water table is declining at 1.5 feet per year, and at this rate, 50% of the aquifer will be gone in 40 years and the aquifer will be dry in 80 years.  What is not commonly understood is that while a constant decline rate will predict the future, there will NOT be a constant decline rate because the wells producing the water and causing the decline will NOT be able to maintain a constant rate of production as the water table continues to drop. 

In fact, even if you are aware enough to know that reductions in saturated thickness will result in reduced pumping rates, most consider these reduced production rates as linear, and therefore predictable over time.  Not true.  A well's production rate decreases ever-faster as the saturated thickness dwindles.  In other words if you find a 10% reduction in your well yield with the last 20 feet of decline, the next 20 feet of decline will reduce your well yield significantly more than 10%, and so on.  The exact relationship is dictated by the aquifer characteristics so they vary from place to place - even within the same aquifer, but the relationship is a geometric one rather than arithmetic.

What this means is that the economic end of pumping will be closer than most think, AND the predicted future water level elevation of the aquifer will be higher than predicted as a result, AND an aquifer (in the sense it is being used in the article) will never be pumped dry.  Said another way, our "plane" will land softer than everyone is predicting.  However, of course, the core issue remains - any overdrafting will eventually see the plane land, while most would prefer that it keep flying forever (sustainability).  This, however, is an issue for a later blog.   

"Time Running out for the Ogallala" Article

Dave Thier just posted an AOL.news item on the Ogallala Aquifer that is the typical gloom and doom approach - the implication is that the entire Ogallala is doomed to go dry in 20 years or less.  The picture here is from the article, and is identified as being an irrigation system near Hoxie, KS - within our GMD here in NW Kansas. 

While not stated as such in this article, I wonder if the picture is presented by the author as an example of the wasteful irrigation methods being used that are the cause of the doom cited in the article.  This is usually the case in most pieces I read on this subject.  It could also be that Mr. Thier intended nothing more than to supply a striking picture of an irrigation system to add interest to his piece - it is a nice photo.  If this is the case then I apologize for overreacting.

In any event, this kind of irrigation in GMD 4 is rare - in fact, this is the only big gun system we staff at GMD 4 are aware of.  Secondly, this photo was taken along the tree-lined banks of the Solomon River East of Hoxie - the water source being the alluvial aquifer associated with the Solomon - not the Ogallala.  Thirdly, the irrigated fields in this area are very small and irregular and don't lend themselves to other more common irrigation systems.  And forthly (and finally) I must say again that inefficient irrigation is NOT the cause of the declines in any aquifer we have in NW Kansas.  It is the consumptive crop water use that occurs virtually equally under every irrigation system that is the cause.

Anyway, back to the reason for this blog.  While many areas of the Ogallala are declining faster than most would think prudent, this is not the case everywhere.  Our GMD average decline rate in the Ogallala for the past 30 years has been .6 feet per year.  The range is from 2 feet per year to areas that are increasing in saturated thickness.  We are in an area of the Ogallala that I think is on the low side of all the average statistics cited for the full aquifer - and certainly far better off than all the areas the press likes to focus on - these being the worst of the worst.

Anyway, it'd be refreshing if the press would spend a little more time characterizing the aquifer more accurately so that their readers get a truer sense of the situation.  Of course, in the end, it's usually a matter of reader perspective.  If you find any level of decline appalling, then our condition is also incredually unacceptable.  Comments?